User talk:JaconaFrere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Notice Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Please read this page first...
Notice Press here to leave a new message on this page.
Messages without subject and signature (~~~~) may be removed without response.

I make lots of mistakes, sorry. If you don't make any mistakes, great! To keep that record intact, it's best not to post here. On the other hand, if you do make mistakes of your own from time to time, please consider how you would like others to respond to your mistakes before posting about mine.

Please add any new topics to the bottom of the page and any comments to existing sections at the bottom of the appropriate section, otherwise they will most likely be ignored. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

SFP Edits[edit]

You made some edits about the Recent Events topic on SFP. They have returned. Should they have?

Hi, JF. I played talkpage stalker and replyed to Endcyberbullying. That section is a mess. My feeling everything but the bit on the transgender person has got to go never to return and the bit on the transgender person needs some copyediting for guidelines (the names) and possible puffery (unless the source says landmark, not landmark. If it is a US Fed courtof Appeal or a Supreme court decision, then add the case name as a redlink). Stuck on my phone...probably no PC time til Sunday am. But i will back your play on removing it then. Pls start a thread on the article talk to CYA. ~~
Let's see what happens over the next day or two. The issue may resolve itself.Jacona (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Got some PC time...but another editor found it and squashed it. All good. Happy editing. John from Idegon (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
By the way, you are always welcome to stalk my talk! Jacona (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


Please stop reverting my edits unless you have a valid reason for doing so. Thanks. - Hoops gza (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Hoops gza: I apologize if you find my edits offensive. Please take a moment to review your practice of reverting edits without providing any meaningful caption other than what is provided by twinkle. I will make an effort to do so as well. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Hoops gza: As I am sure you know, when an editor reverts an edit you have made, the proper procedure per WP:BRD is to go to the article talk page and start a discussion in order to form a consensus. It is not proper procedure to go to the editor's talk page and tell him he cannot do that. As I am sure you also know, neither he, you nor myself actually have any edits. Once we hit the send button they belong to Wikipedia. Your post above shows a serious ownership issue and as we all know, that kind of attitude is nothing but disruptive. If you have any questions, feel free to address them to me on my talk page. I will happily respond as soon as I am able.

John from Idegon (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for message[edit]

Hi JaconaFrere The edits I made are based on information from a primary source, ie the living person about whom the page is written.

Thanks. That's a great reason to remove them, as Wikipedia does not allow such material. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent update of Waco, Texas[edit]

Great job on your Waco, Texas update! You did fabulous work on presenting the city as it is. Thank you! (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Lisa B.

Re "removed discussion of individuals per school article guidelines"[edit]

In this edit, you removed details regarding the person who set a state record for the highest number of wins by a wrestling coach. Among other things, you removed referenced details regarding the fact that the program is run on a cooperative basis with another high school. Why? In the edit summary you justify the removal based on school article guidelines, though the link is to an advisory essay that explicitly states that it is neither a Wikipedia policy nor a guideline. Do you believe that WP:SCH/AG is actually a policy and that content like this that is clearly notable and encyclopedic must be removed on that basis? Alansohn (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No. I do believe that this essay accurately describes the established practices and traditions of the Wikipedia Community developed over the course of Wikihistory. Do you think we should incorporate these practices and traditions in this article? Or do you feel these established traditions and practices should be ignored? Jacona (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
No. The essay represents the views of a tiny, unrepresentative and self-selected subsection of the Wikipedia community, which has granted itself the self-anointed power of judge, jury and executioner to ram their arbitrary essay through, largely by misrepresenting it as Wikipedia policy. You can do whatever you want in updating your essay, but that's all it is; It isn't a guideline and its isn't a policy. The fact that you spend so much time removing content from articles and arguing with editors about these removals of material amply demonstrates that this essay is strikingly out of touch with established traditions and practices. Do you believe that there is any consensus tradition or practice that would exclude a sourced mention of the the person who set a state record for the highest number of wins by a wrestling coach? Alansohn (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Good points, although I disagree that it is out of touch. Many if not most edits to school articles are completely unsourced, self-sourced or promotional. I believe the essay helps the responsible Wiki Community counter that drive for banality. Again, your points are good, and given your convictions, perhaps you should consider editing WP:SCH/AG? I suspect you could improve it considerably. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am Ian, bureaucrat of the Survivor Wiki (wikia username: IAmNothing712)![edit]

I would like to invite you to help out in the Survivor Wiki. It would be an honor to have you as a contributor to one of the most known Survivor-related encyclopedia online. Iankevinsevilla (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Morgantown, Mississippi (Oktibbeha County) concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Morgantown, Mississippi (Oktibbeha County), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, mate[edit]

Thanks, mate. I got a thank you notification, but I don't know where it is and how to say you're welcome. A user on Stuyvesant High School came back, promoting that same stuff we edited. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hillel Yeshiva is a high school[edit]

Your recent edit changed the article for Hillel Yeshiva, New Jersey to a redirect to Ocean Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey, with the edit summary that it was "redirected non notable elementary school to locality article, as is the longstanding tradition for school articles." As the school is a consolidated elementary / high school and as there is broad consensus and longstanding tradition that high schools have a presumption of inherent notability, I will revert the edit. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have an issue with this revert. Alansohn (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Somehow I must have been confused, while looking at multiple articles....the one I meant to redirect was k-5. Not sure how that happened. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


You are reverting good faith and well sourced edits. Your opinion about what makes a reliable source is not at issue here. What is at issue is the black letter law of wikipedia standards. I encourage you to read up on the standards promulgated by wikipedia. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

These are not well sourced, please see what constitutes a reliable source. This has been discussed on the talk page, and the edits removed back in 2009. Replacing them today without concensus is not good practice! Jacona (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
These are well sourced, with 4 separate sources. Please see what constitutes a reliable source. It appears it was discussed years ago, but no sources were ever provided. It is not a good practice to only half read the history of the article. Thanks for your cooperation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Lots of unreliable sources do not make something "well-sourced". Please consider reading WP:RS to find out what one is. A blog is not a reliable source. Jacona (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Then I must assume you did not read them, because only one of those links was to a blog. As requested previously, please consider reading:reliable source. "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". Hence the qualifier: "There have been reports...." I understand you are doing the best you can with the limited understanding you have of what a "reliable source" is. You'll get there eventually. Just remember, before you go editing other people's research, take the time to study and think first. You'll be able to avoid this type of embarrassment in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
You asked to take this to the talk page, which I immediately did, and you responded by reporting me. Very honest of you. I can see now you're not interested in what is right, only in what satisfies your ego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Please take time to read WP:RS. Jacona (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I did. In fact, I quoted from it. Did you read it? Please take the time to understand the issues before passing judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Then you would have read this.... "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." Jacona (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

In deed I did. But obviously you did NOT read the sources. They are not: publications expressing views that are: (i) widely acknowledged as extremist, (ii) are promotional in nature, or (iii) rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Further, the sources did not cite contentious claims against institutions, persons, or ill-defined entities. They make claims that users have experienced problems with moderators, which is a verifiable fact. Further, you will note that questionable sources can be used properly, in very limited circumstances. Thus, simply defining a source as questionable does not restrict its use.

Disambiguation link notification for December 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yoo (Korean surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transcription. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words[edit]

I do appreciate your kind words at dramaland, but it is obvious (and commendable) that you spend very little time there. An "indef" sentence either for a block or some kind of editing sanction is probably the most common length handed down. It just means the party sanctioned will have to demonstrate that he gets what the issue is and is going to correct it. For a non-problematic editor who is truly interested in building the pedia, it is usually a very short time as they stop and think about what they were doing and simply do things different. For truly troubled editors, it can be a life sentence. I'm not going to speculate what it will be for Alansohn, if that is what happens to him. As to the context of your message there, I already do very much regret the incident that occurred on my talk page, altho I will hold that I was correct in substance but very wrong in form. What I did was sink my hope of becoming an admin any time soon, and for that both myself and the community will lose. I am far better at being a manager than I am a writer. John from Idegon (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)